Reading Comprehension

History

Medium

The Indian government has announced an international competition to design a National War Memorial in New Delhi, to honour all of the Indian soldiers who served in the various wars and counter-insurgency campaigns from $1947$ onwards. The terms of the competition also specified that the new structure would be built adjacent to the India Gate - a memorial to the Indian soldiers who died in the First World War. Between the old imperialist memorial and the proposed nationalist one, India's contribution to the Second World War is airbrushed out of existence.

The Indian government's conception of the war memorial was not merely absent-minded. Rather, it accurately reflected the fact that both academic history and popular memory have yet to come to terms with India's Second World War, which continues to be seen as little more than mood music in the drama of India's advance towards independence and partition in 1947. Further, the political trajectory of the postwar subcontinent has militated against popular remembrance of the war. With partition and the onset of the India-Pakistan rivalry, both of the new nations needed fresh stories for self-legitimisation rather than focusing on shared wartime experiences.

However, the Second World War played a crucial role in both the independence and partition of India. The Indian army recruited, trained and deployed some $2.5$ million men, almost $90,000$ of which were killed and many more injured. Even at the time, it was recognised as the largest volunteer force in the war.

India's material and financial contribution to the war was equally significant. India emerged as a major military-industrial and logistical base for Allied operations in south-east Asia and the Middle East. This led the United States to take considerable interest in the country's future, and ensured that this was no longer the preserve of the British government.

Other wartime developments pointed in the direction of India's independence. In a stunning reversal of its long-standing financial relationship with Britain, India finished the war as one of the largest creditors to the imperial power.

Such extraordinary mobilization for war was achieved at great human cost, with the Bengal famine the most extreme manifestation of widespread wartime deprivation. The costs on India's home front must be counted in millions of lives.

Indians signed up to serve on the war and home fronts for a variety of reasons. Many were convinced that their contribution would open the doors to India's freedom. The political and social churn triggered by the war was evident in the massive waves of popular protest and unrest that washed over rural and urban India in the aftermath of the conflict. This turmoil was crucial in persuading the Attlee government to rid itself of the incubus of ruling India.

The author suggests that a major reason why India has not so far acknowledged its role in the Second World War is that it:

has been focused on building an independent, non-colonial political identity.

wants to forget the human and financial toll of the War on the country

views the War as a predominantly Allied effort, with India playing only a supporting role

blames the War for leading to the momentous partition of the country

✅ Correct Option: 1

This requires finding the author's explanation for this oversight.

The key lies in understanding what happened after the war -> when new nations formed, they needed new stories to tell about themselves.

From passage: "With partition and the onset of the India-Pakistan rivalry, both of the new nations needed fresh stories for self-legitimisation rather than focusing on shared wartime experiences."

Author's reasoning: After 1947 partition -> India and Pakistan became rivals -> both needed new national stories to prove their legitimacy -> focusing on shared colonial war experiences didn't help build separate identities -> so they ignored WWII contributions.

Now let's eliminate the wrong options by checking what the passage actually says:

🟢 Option 1 -> correct -> "fresh stories for self-legitimisation" = building new non-colonial identity, moving away from shared colonial wartime past

🔴 Option 2 -> irrelevant -> passage never says India wants to "forget" war costs - it explains political reasons for not focusing on war, not emotional ones about forgetting trauma

🔴 Option 3 -> contradicts passage -> passage actually emphasizes India's major role (2.5 million soldiers, "largest volunteer force," major military base) - opposite of "supporting role"

🔴 Option 4 -> not supported -> passage shows war helped independence (weakened Britain, convinced Attlee government) - doesn't suggest India blames war for partition

The confusion might be between Options 1 and 2, but Option 2 talks about emotional reasons (wanting to forget trauma) while the passage gives political reasons (need for new national identity).

Question 10

The author claims that omitting mention of Indians who served in the Second World War from the new National War Memorial is:

Question 11

In the first paragraph, the author laments the fact that:

Question 13

The phrase "mood music" is used in the second paragraph to indicate that the Second World War is viewed as:

Question 14

The author lists all of the following as outcomes of the Second World War EXCEPT:

The author suggests that a major reason why India has not so far acknowledged its role in the Second World War is that it:

Solution

More from this set:

Keyboard Shortcuts

CAT Past Year Questions (Topic-Wise)